Sonny Corleone

I want to make a distinction between genuine inquiry, on the one hand, and partisan advocacy, on the other. Consider a central (but far from the only) topic in the philosophy of religion: the existence or nonexistence of God. Consider, for a moment, what it would mean to engage in genuine inquiry regarding God’s existence. If the word “inquiry” means anything at all, surely it means more than “read stuff which confirms the point of view you already hold.” It should include, at a minimum, reading opposing viewpoints, not with the goal of preparing pithy one-liners for debates, but with the goal of actually trying to learn something or consider new ways of looking at old topics. For professional philosophers, I would imagine that inquiry would also include trying to “steel man” your opposition, i.e., trying to strengthen the arguments for your opponent’s position. It might even include publishing arguments for a position you do not hold and even reject.

In contrast, partisan advocacy is, well, exactly what it sounds like it is. Much like an attorney hired to vigorously defend her client in court, a partisan advocate isn’t interested in genuine inquiry. To the extent a partisan advocate reads the “other side” at all, she does so in the same way presidential candidates try to find out the “truth” about their opponent under the guise of “opposition research.” So, for example, if a partisan advocate were to create a reading list about God’s existence, they would compile a list of recommended resources which either exclusively or overwhelmingly promoted a certain point of view and without even a hint that a balanced inquiry should be taken.

As suggested by the subtitle of this post, if we apply the genuine inquiry vs. partisan advocacy distinction to religion, I think we get the distinction between (an ideal) philosophy of religion vs. apologetics.

i) Jeff seems to think any such list ought to give both sides of the argument. Certainly there are situations in which that's advisable. No doubt if Dr. McGrew were teaching a college course on philosophy of religion, he'd give both sides of the argument. Have required reading from both sides.

However, it's unreasonable to think that's a general epistemic obligation. The point of reading both sides of an argument is to take sides. To render an informed judgment. Having arrived at a particular conclusion, it's perfectly appropriate to take your conclusion for granted when making recommendations. Indeed, the point of asking someone like Dr. McGrew for advice is that he can be trusted to do the initial sifting and sorting.

ii) McGrew's list is obviously for popular consumption. The books are pitched at the level of the layman rather than the professional philosopher. Yes, it's ideal to read the best proponents and opponents of a given position, but you need to take the aptitude of the target audience into account.

iii) Good books on Christian apologetics do give both sides of the argument. They present the opposing position in order to critique it. It's not as if the treatment is one-sided.

Perhaps Jeff would object that the treatment is biased. It's true that it's often preferable to learn the opposing position direct from the source, rather than filtered through a hostile source. But my immediate point is that it's someone misleading for Jeff to insinuate that if you only read Christian apologetics, you're only exposed to arguments for Christianity and arguments against atheism. A good book on Christian apologetics will also interact with arguments for atheism and arguments against Christianity.

iv) There is, though, a deeper issue. In terms of inquiry, given limited resources and time-management constraints, where should we invest our time? How do we prioritize? How do we narrow the search parameters?

One approach is risk assessment and cost/benefit analysis. Take vaccination. That's a precautionary measure. Should I be vaccinated just in case there's an epidemic? The answer depends on counterbalancing the potential harm, benefit, severity, and probability. How dangerous is the pathogen? How likely is an outbreak? Am I in the high risk group for anaphylaxis? Sometimes we do something hazardous because the alternative is even more hazardous. Sometimes what is reckless in one situation is prudent in another.

Now, the crucial point is that we engage in this deliberation when we don't know the specifics. I don't know if there will be an outbreak. I don't know if I'm in the high risk group for anaphylaxis. But if I wait to find out, it may be too late. I can't afford to learn the hard way. There's too much to lose. If, on the other hand, I have a genetic marker that puts me in the high-risk group for anaphylaxis, then it's more prudent to take my chances with an epidemic.

At this stage of the inquiry, I do the risk assessment and cost/benefit analysis to preemptively eliminate certain options. I don't give those options any further consideration. I don't suspend judgment until I get to the bottom of things, because the whole point is to take precautionary measures in the event of a worse-case scenario.

v) Apply that to atheism. It isn't necessary for the inquiry to determine whether atheism is true or false. Rather, inquiry would rationally terminate at a preliminary stage. Suppose, if atheism is true, you have everything to lose and nothing to gain. Conversely, if Christianity is true, you have nothing to lose and everything to gain. The purpose of the inquiry is to determine if that's the case. At this stage of the inquiry, the objective is not to determine which position is true or false, but to access the respective consequences of their hypothetical truth or falsity. Moral and existential consequences. Depending on the results, there may be no obligation to pursue our inquiry any further. We stop at the preliminary stage because we ruled out that hypothetical option for reasons that don't even impinge on the truth or falsity of the alternatives. And that can be justifiable. It isn't always essential or obligatory to take intellectual inquiry beyond that preliminary elimination stage.

vi) Take Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism. That's controversial. The purpose of the inquiry is to determine whether his argument is a success or failure. If his argue fails, then we expand the inquiry to investigate other arguments for or against naturalism. But if his argument succeeds, then that's a logical place to end the inquiry. If naturalism subverts the reliability of reason, isn't that a sufficient defeater? There are many different ways to kill somebody, but once he's dead, it's redundant to employ additional methods. That's literally overkill. How much lead do you need to pump into Sonny Corleone to get the job done?

8 comments:

So if we are in an intellectual maze, we look around at the different paths that are before us. Many paths lead to twists and turns, and we can't immediately see where they lead. They have to be explored at least a little, you have to see what is around the bend. But then I look at the atheistic path...it is an immediate dead end. There is nothing to explore, it is an immediate wall six feet away that leads nowhere. There are no turns or bends, just a wall of despair. It offers no hope, even on its own terms. Why would I waste much time exploring this path?

I don't see the Christian position being any less time-wasting: basically, 2000 years of debate (which God has not taken part in) has drawn an infinite number of possibilities down to a couple of consensus alternatives, around which points the existing churches gather. Jesus' flesh, or just a wafer; make your decision and pick a church, in essence. Run down a decision making tree of what you believe, and choose a (unchanging, immune to new data) church that fits your preconceived comfort level, and confirms the degree of involvement and privation you are willing to accept, while dealing with your enemies in a personally-satisfying manner. And this is a human-centered set of religions, where God is expected to subvert his will to the vote of the various human factions, the consensus view of what he should be thinking. Then the various sects get to work hardening their positions by assuming various mantles of God-approval (the inerrency of the Bible, for instance). This is what we get by turning the whole thing into a series of either-or votes of a biased electorate.

Personally, I cringe every time someone takes an obscure Bible passage which may or may not even be accurate and tries to twist it into speaking in favor of his own belief system, and so should any thinking follower of the ineffable God.

tl;dr: Why is it so necessary to answer every unanswerable question of religion right now, this instant, with such an incredible lack of solid information?

It's hardly a waste of time to eliminate atheism from consideration. We can then focus on the theistic alternatives. And it's easy to narrow that down.

"Jesus' flesh, or just a wafer"

My post wasn't about sacramentalism.

"where God is expected to subvert his will to the vote of the various human factions, the consensus view of what he should be thinking."

My post didn't appeal to consensus.

" This is what we get by turning the whole thing into a series of either-or votes of a biased electorate."

I didn't use a voter paradigm.

"Personally, I cringe every time someone takes an obscure Bible passage which may or may not even be accurate and tries to twist it into speaking in favor of his own belief system, and so should any thinking follower of the ineffable God."

Irrelevant to my post. And if you think God is "ineffable", that demands a supporting argument. What's the difference between an ineffable God and no God at all?

"Why is it so necessary to answer every unanswerable question of religion right now, this instant, with such an incredible lack of solid information?"

Irrelevant to my post.

Evidently you feel the need to get something off your chest. Presumably you're reacting to personal experience. And this is your stock objection to Christianity, which you whip out regardless of what was actually said.

basically, 2000 years of debate (which God has not taken part in) has drawn an infinite number of possibilities down to a couple of consensus alternatives, around which points the existing churches gather.

First off, God took part in "the debate" by being incarnated, teaching the truth and the way of salvation, giving us an example to follow and dying on the cross to provide salvation for humanity. Secondly, your description of Christianity is an exaggeration used to attempt to discredit it on false and inaccurate grounds. There are not an infinite number of possibilities regarding the Christian doctrines that are in dispute among professing Christians. For example, it's not like there are hundreds of eschatological positions even though there's (arguably) more disagreement and differences on that issue than on anything else. Nor are there hundreds (or even dozens) of views on baptism, or Christology, or pneumatology, or sacramentology et cetera. If there are dozens of views on Christian baptism, I'd be interested in you listing all 24 (or more) views. The fact is that "The 33,000 Protestant Denominations" claim is a lie. I've collected links to resources debunking that myth HERE.

"Jesus' flesh, or just a wafer; make your decision and pick a church, in essence. "

Wait, I thought you said there was an infinite number. Now you've given us a binary choice. Actually, there are nearly a dozens views on communion, but certaintly not 24. Much less an infinite number. You also beg the question that the issue cannot be resolved from Scripture.

and choose a (unchanging, immune to new data)

IF Protestants are right about Sola Scriptura, then the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith and practice for the Church. That narrows down the possible theological options once Scripture placed as the highest arbiter. That's why among denominations that consistently practice Sola Scriptura, there is much consensus and why Evangelicals who disagree on non-essentials can agree on the essentials and call each other brothers (e.g. conservative Evangelical Baptists, Presbyterians, Anglican, Lutherans [etc.] can regard each other as genuine Christians).

church that fits your preconceived comfort level, and confirms the degree of involvement and privation you are willing to accept,

Christ commands, requires and is worthy of total commitment. Even unto death. When Christians have a lower standard, they aren't being consistent with Christ's command. So, no, there's only one correct position. Not an infinite number.

while dealing with your enemies in a personally-satisfying manner.

Christ and His apostles are clear when it comes to their theological opponents. Christ and the Apostles refuted and corrected false doctrine. The church isn't a theocracy and therefore heretics should not be stoned to death by the church. Paul's solution was excommunication in this Age, not capital punishment in this. Christ will deal with those who opposed Him and His teaching in the afterlife and/or the Eschaton.

And this is a human-centered set of religions, where God is expected to subvert his will to the vote of the various human factions, the consensus view of what he should be thinking.

That's the exact opposite of what the Bible teaches and requires. God commands we submit to His will, not He to ours. Seriously, one Christ's most famous prayers to God the Father was "not My will, but Yours be done" (cf. Luke 22:42; Matt. 26:39; Mark 14:36). It's a sentiment repeatedly taught in the Old Testament and the rest of the New Testament. Making such a statement as you do, I wonder if you've ever even read the Bible in its entirety. If you have then you're either very forgetful or are blatantly dishonest. Or maybe you're confusing/conflating Christian requirement and actual (inconsistent) Christian practice. Well, it shouldn't be surprising that there are false Christians as well as genuine Christians continuing to sin by lowering God's standards. The Bible both predicts and addresses those problems.

Then the various sects get to work hardening their positions by assuming various mantles of God-approval (the inerrency of the Bible, for instance).

The unquestionable and infallible authority of the Scriptures have always been a key distinguishing mark of God's people. That's why for thousands of years the Jews have been considered a "people of the book" [i.e. the Scriptures]. Muhammad included Christians in that description. Christians have argued for sola Scriptura (see David King and William Webster's 3 volume work on the topic). Or Webster's lectures on the topic HERE. Karaite Jews themselves argue against Oral Tradition based on history and the Tanakh (i.e. the Old Testament). Messianic Jews like Michael Brown also argue against Jewish Oral Tradition (see volume 5 of Brown's Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus where he also cites Karaite Jew Nehemia Gordon).

This is what we get by turning the whole thing into a series of either-or votes of a biased electorate.

On the one hand you seem to imply that Christianity is as diverse as each individual Christian who molds his private version of Christianity to his liking, yet on the other hand now you're saying it was voted on by a biased electorate. If I'm not mistaken, you're being inconsistent here. Also, who is this electorate you're referring to and how are they voting? Are you referring to Church Councils/Synods? If so, such councils didn't always "vote" on doctrines. And even if they did, what matters is what the Bible actually teaches. Such votes or decisions are only as binding as they are Biblical.

Personally, I cringe every time someone takes an obscure Bible passage which may or may not even be accurate and tries to twist it into speaking in favor of his own belief system

Truly Biblical Christian abhor that as well.

..., and so should any thinking follower of the ineffable God.

If God were truly ineffable, then you would have no basis whatsoever to make any judgments about God and what God would or wouldn't do, teach or not teach. You're being inconsistent with your claimed view of ineffability. In contradistinction to your inconsistency (and possible hypocrisy) theists who claim God has revealed Himself are being consistent when they claim to know certain things about God and His doctrines. Ineffability is a gnostic view that teaches one cannot have gnosis. Meaning, it's literally self-contradictory, self-undermining self-defeating and therefore false.

Too long, didn't read? Well, one thing one can say about holding to the doctrine of ineffability, it can give some people the (false) justification that they don't have to actually read theology and apologetics since they've concluded a priori that it's all useless. It can be a justification for intellectual and moral laziness. I'm not saying you're doing that, but for all I know, you are.

Why is it so necessary to answer every unanswerable question of religion right now, this instant, with such an incredible lack of solid information?

You beg the question that they are unanswerable or that it is not the case that at least some things can be said about most theological issues. You also beg the question that the Bible is not a sufficiently solid source of information. Just because the Bible doesn't address and settle the issue on every theological topic doesn't mean it isn't sufficient to lead to the knowledge of salvation and for the other purposes God inspired and revealed it for. Something which the Bible repeatedly claims.

basically, 2000 years of debate (which God has not taken part in) has drawn an infinite number of possibilities down to a couple of consensus alternatives, around which points the existing churches gather.

You're 2000 years too late. Christ was incarnated approximately 2000 years ago and so "the debate" (as you call it) was settled 2000 years ago according God and in God's mind/opinion. Also, even before Christ's incarnation there was General Revelation which revealed to humanity the basic attributes of God so that we were all culpable for either knowing God or having ought to have known God but not knowing Him as we should. Unlike those who died before being exposed to God's Special Revelation (i.e. God's unique progressive revelation through Israel that culminated in Christ), you are in a situation where you have the opportunity to read and study the Bible for yourself so as to come to know about God more fully and be reconciled to Him through the salvation found in Christ alone. I hope you do that. From what you've typed, you seem to not know much about the Bible. I encourage you to actually take the time to read it prayerfully, humbly and consider if there might be something to it.

TYPO CORRECTION:

"That narrows down the possible theological options once Scripture [IS] placed as the highest arbiter."